Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/797/2019

Taranjit Singh Sethi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Trends, Reliance Retail Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

01 Feb 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	797/2019
Date of Institution	:	21.08.2019
Date of Decision	:	01.02.2022

 

                                       

                                               

Taranjit Singh Sethi (aged 35 years) son of Sh.Sawinder Singh Sethi, r/o Flat No.230, Advocates Society, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

Reliance Trends, Reliance Retail Ltd., Elante Mall, Plot No.178, Shop No.247 & 248, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Manager.

…. Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:   

SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

Argued by

                   Sh.Sachin Jain, Adv. for complainant

Sh.Sanjeev Pabbi, Advocate for the OP.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         The facts of the case as alleged by the complainant are that on 09.08.2019, he purchased some goods worth Rs.2569.60/- from the OP, including cost of the carry bag. It has further been averred that the cashier of the OP handed over the goods in a carry bag having the advertisement of the OP-shop, though he had no intention to purchase the carry bag whereas it was the duty of the OP to provide the carry bag, but he was forced to pay the price of the carry bag worth Rs.3.00.  He requested the OP to refund the price of the carry bag but the OP flatly refused to do so. It has further been averred that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service as also indulged into unfair trade practice by charging for the carry bags. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2.         In their written statement, the OP while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that to protect the environment at large and also to provide convenience to the visiting customers, the OP had introduced the optional sale of carry bags. The charges of Rs.3/- for a carry bag were taken only after the consent of the Complainant.  Moreover, the requisite information was also displayed in the Store of the Opposite Party. It has been pleaded that the OP charge for the carry bag only if the customer consents for the same. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the OP controverting its stand and reiterating his own.
4.         We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record and written arguments of OP.
5.         It is admitted fact on record that the OP had charged a sum of Rs.3/- on account of paper carry bag vide invoice (Annexure C-1).
6.        It has further been argued on behalf of the OP that suitable advertisements and posters are displayed at prominent locations in the store as the OP is committed to follow a responsible environmental policy.  However, we are not impressed with the same, in as much as, the OP has miserably failed to produce on record any cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence in the shape of any rules/ instructions authorizing it to levy charge additionally for the carry bag from the gullible Consumers. Moreover, if the OP is environmental activist, they should have given the same to the complainant free of cost. Therefore, the contention of the OP that there is no law as such which directs or binds any shop keeper to provide carry bags for free is rejected being bereft of any force. It was surely for the gain of the OP and by employing unfair trade practice, the OP is minting lot of money from all customers.
7.         It has further been argued on behalf of the OP that the carry bag was given to the complainant only upon consent from him with respect to the purchase of the carry bag. However, we are also not impressed with the same, in as much as if the Cashier informed the complainant about the purchase of carry bag before billing, the same amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, as it would have been very odd and inconvenient for complainant to carry the new articles in hand throughout without a carry bag. In this backdrop, charges of such things (carry bags) cannot be separately foisted upon the consumers and would amount to overcharging. It is noteworthy that in this manner, the complainant and other gullible consumers like him has certainly been taken for a ride by the OP. Undoubtedly, the OP has several stores across the country and in the above said manner, made lot of money; thus, the act of OP by forcing the gullible consumers to pay additionally for the carry bags is surely and certainly amounts to deficiency in service and its indulgence into unfair trade practice.
8.         Moreover, it has been held by our Hon’ble State Commission that all kinds of expenses incurred in order to put goods into a deliverable state shall be suffered by the seller.  Here      our view is bolstered from the judgment dated 18.05.2020 of our own Hon’ble State Commission passed in F.A. No.238/2019 –Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Ashok Kumar, wherein it was decided as under:-

        “It may be stated here that, once we have already held that all kinds of expenses incurred in order to put goods into a deliverable state shall be suffered by the seller, as such, the contention raised does not merit acceptance. Ever otherwise, as per the contention raised by Counsel for the appellant, on the one hand, purchase of carry bags is made optional & voluntary but at the same time, the consumer/customer is not allowed to enter the shop with their own carry bags containing some goods purchased from other shop premises. We cannot expect that for every single item/article intended to be purchased by a customer, he/she needs to carry separate carry bags. For e.g. if a customer wants to purchase, say about 15 in number, daily-use goods/articles like macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad, soap, toothpaste, shaving cream, pen, pencil etc., from different shops, we cannot expect him/her to take 15 carry bags from home, for the same. Thus, by not allowing the customers to carry their own carry bags by the appellant in its premises, there was no option left with them to buy the carry bags alongwith the goods purchased, to carry the same from the shop-premises. We are shocked to note the kind of services provided by these big Malls/Showrooms. One cannot be expected to take the goods like macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad etc., purchased, win hands. By not allowing the customers to bring in the shop premises, their own carry bags, and thrusting its own carry bags against consideration, the appellant is deficient in providing service and also indulged into unfair trade practice. No case is made out to reverse the findings of the respective District Forum in each appeal.”

                The ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, in the case, deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP is proved.

9.       In view of the above discussions, the consumer complaint deserves to succeed against the OP, and the same is accordingly allowed qua it. The OP is directed:-
   1. to refund Rs.3/- i.e. cost of carry bag to the complainant.
   2. to pay Rs.100/- to the complainant towards compensation for harassment and mental agony.  Compensation imposed on lower side as mental agony of parting with the price of the carry bag could only be caused to this extent.
   3. to pay Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses.      
10.         This order shall be complied with by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall be liable to pay the amount at Sr.No.(i) to (iii) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order, till its realization.
11.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01.02.2022.

Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER